Is Sneak Attack ever worth it?


Advice

401 to 450 of 473 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Mattastrophic wrote:
Covent wrote:
Specifically the Menacing amulet and DPR calc portions?

Sure, real quick here...

You've got the DPR formula right, and check out how menacing works.

PRD wrote:
Menacing: This ability can only be placed on a melee weapon. This weapon property helps allies deal with flanked foes. When the wielder is adjacent to a creature that is being flanked by an ally, the flanking bonus on attack rolls for all flanking allies increases by +2. This ability works even if the wielder is not one of the characters flanking the creature.

Am I about to hear about the "what does 'wielding' mean" problem?

-Matt

Ah so if I am understanding correctly you are saying that your rogue is wielding both the rapier and the Unarmed Strike and therefore as she is one handing the rapier gains the ability to gain the menacing bonus correct?

I would point you at this FAQ and disagree. Saying instead that as you did not attack with the Unarmed strike you do not gain the benefit.

Edit: My thanks for the reply. :-)

Also so what you are saying is that you simply added the DPR for another attack at highest bonus for opportunist. Humm, this seems like a good way to calculate it, however to be precise should you not first have to calculate your allies chance of actually hitting?


Covent wrote:
Ah so if I am understanding correctly you are saying that your rogue is wielding both the rapier and the Unarmed Strike and therefore as she is one handing the rapier gains the ability to gain the menacing bonus correct?

I'm not going to go into the wielding issue. What I will say is that weirdness occurs if you treat menacing like defending. There's even a heavily-FAQed thread about this issue as it applies to courageous. Rachel is wielding her rapier one-handed, to answer your question.

Covent wrote:
Also so what you are saying is that you simply added the DPR for another attack at highest bonus for opportunist. Humm, this seems like a good way to calculate it, however to be precise should you not first have to calculate your allies chance of actually hitting?

The thing is, I really have no way of calculating the probability of at least one attack from at least one other party member hitting over the course of a round. That's why I separated Opportunist's effect out. If I did have a way to factor in that probability, I would have just added Opportunist into the DPR number.

Where it gets even wonkier is trying to account for AOs generated when a prone foe tries to stand up. If he tries to stand up. I think with that, I'll just be happy with establishing that Raquel's trip modifier is high enough that attempting to trip never lowers her expected DPR due to the chance of the trip failing.

EDIT: After accounting for Opportunist in Raquel's trip sequence, her expected DPR there ends up at 99.96, in the case of Raquel receiving a flank, clicking her heels, Opportunist triggering at some point, and attempting to trip her opponent. SO CLOSE!

-Matt

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Melee build is go.

Spoiler:
Human Bard (Archaeologist) 10
CG Medium Humanoid
Init +6; Senses Perception +18,
DEFENSE
AC 28, touch 19, flat-footed 23 (+6 Armor, +1 NA, +1 Deflection, +6 Dex, +2 luck, +2 Shield)
HP 73 (10d8+20)
Fort +7, Ref +16, Will +10
Special Defenses evasion, uncanny dodge, trap sense +3,
OFFENSE
Spd 30 ft.
Melee wakizashi +14/+9 (1d6+7/15–20) or piranha strike +12/+7 (1d6+11/15-20) usually +5 to hit and +8 damage from luck plus Good Hope, plus Arcane Strike
Ranged shortbow +14/+9 (1d6-1/x3)

SPELLS (Concentration +13, Save DC 13+Spell Level)
4th: 1/day: Dimension Door, Invisibility (Greater)
3rd: 4/day: Glibness, Good Hope, Haste, 1 more,
2nd: 5/day: Acute Senses, Glitterdust, Invisibility, Mirror Image, Tongues, Versatile Weapon,
1st: 6/day: Charm Person, Cure Light Wounds, Feather Step, Grease, Vanish, Undetectable Alignment,
0th: Detect Magic, Ghost Sound, Mage Hand, Mending, Message, Prestidigitation,

STATISTICS
Str 8, Dex 22*, Con 12, Int 14, Wis 10, Cha 16*
BAB +7; CMB +6; CMD 25
Feats Arcane Strike, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Greater Improved Trip, Piranha Strike, Lingering Performance, Martial Weapon Proficiency (Wakizashi), Weapon Finesse,
Skills: Acrobatics +16, Bluff +15, Diplomacy +15, Disable Device +27, Escape Artist +12, Intimidate +7, Knowledge (Arcana) +11, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) +11, Knowledge (Engineering) +11, Knowledge (Geography) +11, Knowledge (History) +11, Knowledge (Local) +15, Knowledge (Nature) +11, Knowledge (Nobility) +11, Knowledge (Religion) +11, Knowledge (Planes) +11, Perception +18, Sense Motive +13, Sleight of Hand +12, Spellcraft +6, Stealth +19, Use Magic Device +14,
Languages Common, Elven, Orcish,
Traits Vagabond Child, Fate's Favored
Special archaeologist's luck (7 rds/day, +3 luck bonus on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and weapon damage rolls), rogue talents (finesse rogue, combat trick), clever explorer +5 (Can take 10 on Disable Device under stress), bardic knowledge +5, lore master (1/day), jack of all trades,
Combat Gear potion of cure moderate wounds (1), potion of lesser restoration (1), wand of cure light wounds (50 charges), wand of shield (50 charges), probably some miscellaneous other consumables,
Other Gear Bane Baldric, Cloak of Resistance +2, Mithral Kikko +1, Belt of Dexterity +2, Headband of Charisma +2, Gauntlets of the Skilled Maneuver, Ring of Protection +1, Amulet of Natural Armor +1, Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier, +1 Keen Agile Wakizashi, Masterwork Wakizashi, +1 Buckler, shortbow w/20 arrows, dagger, masterwork thief's tools

So, this build actually manages a +23 or +25 on Trip, finally. Has +3 AC over Raquel, better saves, better skills when using Luck, and spells to boot. Admittedly less initiative, but can manage a +11 with Luck and Good Hope.

So, DPR for this one.

Standard, w/Luck and piranha strike because why not: 19.155
Good Hope + Luck + Arcane Strike: 26.47
Good Hope + Luck + Arcane Strike + Haste: 47.04
Good Hope + Luck + Bane Baldric: 56.53
Good Hope + Luck + Bane Baldric + Haste: 81
Good Hope + Luck + Bane Baldric + Haste + Greater Invisibility Or Flanking: 93.7
Good Hope + Luck + Bane Baldric + Haste + Arcane Strike: 89.3
Good Hope + Luck + Bane Baldric + Haste + Arcane Strike + Greater Invisibility or Flanking: 103.41

I'm not gonna bother with how flanking effects the lesser buff amounts, except that it'd be nice.

And the Archery build will have more DPR than that.


Very nice, Deadman, very nice. Your build-fu is very good!

-Matt

Liberty's Edge

Mattastrophic wrote:

Very nice, Deadman, very nice. Your build-fu is very good!

-Matt

Thanks. I try. :)

And yours are nothing to sneeze at either, I just feel they're hampered a little by, well, being Rogues.


Yep, definitely hampered. Spells are a really tough mountain to overcome.

I think if I get a chance to revisit this topic, I'll examine the case of Raquel being in a party which includes a Fighter, a Cleric/Oracle, and a Wizard/Sorcerer, to demonstrate what happens when the "teamwork" aspect which gets brought up a lot comes into play.

For example, Raquel spent 12,000gp of her 62,000gp on boots of speed. Expecting haste or blessing of fervor from this party is not a very tough assumption to make. Stuff like that.

Either way, it's a joy to see actual evidence and friendly character-building at stake. I usually don't play the DPR game, due to how subjective an actual Pathfinder game is, but there's been so much negativity on these boards over the Rogue for quite some time. I felt compelled to help out with separating the signal from the noise.

-Matt

Liberty's Edge

Mattastrophic wrote:

Yep, definitely hampered. Spells are a really tough mountain to overcome.

I think if I get a chance to revisit this topic, I'll examine the case of Raquel being in a party which includes a Fighter, a Cleric/Oracle, and a Wizard/Sorcerer, to demonstrate what happens when the "teamwork" aspect which gets brought up a lot comes into play.

For example, Raquel spent 12,000gp of her 62,000gp on boots of speed. Expecting haste or blessing of fervor from this party is not a very tough assumption to make. Stuff like that.

-Matt

Yeah, that's a solid call. I think it'll favor the Bard all told (even an Archaeologist...Good Hope is very nice)...but 12k and flanking are solid bonuses to the Rogue as well.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Matt, if you ever get on a table with my Holy Vindicator you can certainly expect some buffs headed your way. Blessings of Fervor and Spiritual Ally at a minimum.


Do all your DM's give you any equipment you want when you want it?

Everyone got all over Matt for his crafting work around when he spent a feat to get those items, but all these builds are done with equipment from gold.

If you want to see what a BUILD can do, it should be with no equipment. It should be about what is done with the lvls. Clever equipment "theorycraft" is just a completely separate thing, unless you have a crafting feat like Matt included. Even then it still hides exactly how weak or strong the rest of a build is.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Bladelock wrote:
Do all your DM's give you any equipment you want when you want it?

Mostly, yeah.

Liberty's Edge

Bladelock wrote:

Do all your DM's give you any equipment you want when you want it?

Everyone got all over Matt for his crafting work around when he spent a feat to get those items, but all these builds are done with equipment from gold.

If you want to see what a BUILD can do, it should be with no equipment. It should be about what is done with the lvls. Clever equipment "theorycraft" is just a completely separate thing, unless you have a crafting feat like Matt included. Even then it still hides exactly how weak or strong the rest of a build is.

Uh...most GMs, even if they don't give exactly what you want, give, y'know, gold. Which you can use to buy exactly what you want. And neither of our builds have that many especially rare items.

And Pathfinder is based on WBL...doing things with less than that is not an accurate reflection of how the game is intended to function.

Both also have very similar equipment, so it's unlikely to make a giant difference most times.


Bladelock wrote:
Do all your DM's give you any equipment you want when you want it?

Pathfinder Society also does. On top of that, PFS even radically inflates a character's Wealth-By-Level by granting oodles of free consumables, in the form of free of 750gp or less in price. If my PFS Rogues had no tablemate able to cast heroism, I could always afford to just burn a scroll of it, because I knew that every scenario would give me enough Prestige to pick up a free scroll with a casting (two if I were to fast-track XP) of heroism inscribed on it. On one of them, I also went all the way past 12th level on my first wands of shield and cure light wounds. And I slow-tracked a lot.

These free items are something a character with Use Magic Device can really leverage in PFS, by the way. I sure did.

You do make a good point, though. It's just very very hard to establish an "equipment standard," even though it would make character benchmarking much easier.

-Matt


Mattastrophic wrote:
Bladelock wrote:
Do all your DM's give you any equipment you want when you want it?

Pathfinder Society also does. On top of that, PFS even radically inflates a character's Wealth-By-Level by granting oodles of free consumables, in the form of free of 750gp or less in price. If my PFS Rogues had no tablemate able to cast heroism, I could always afford to just burn a scroll of it, because I knew that every scenario would give me enough Prestige to pick up a free scroll with a casting (two if I were to fast-track XP) of heroism inscribed on it. On one of them, I also went all the way past 12th level on my first wands of shield and cure light wounds. And I slow-tracked a lot.

These free items are something a character with Use Magic Device can really leverage in PFS, by the way. I sure did.

You do make a good point, though. It's just very very hard to establish an "equipment standard," even though it would make character benchmarking much easier.

-Matt

I have only been in only a few campaigns where you could buy magic as easily as going to the corner store. I think I need to get into a PFS game to see what it's all about.

Yeah, I'm also a big fan of UMD. I know everyone thinks about stealth, SA, and trap finding as the defining rogue characteristics, but UMD is also big on the list for me.

I guess I see your point about an equipment standard Matt. I just see a lot of items, like ioun stones, in every build that don't seem very standard to me. The entire party getting buffs, if there is time to buff, seems more of a standard to me. I mean, is a speed item good for very many encounters if you have a good team (rogue or otherwise)?


The system does assume characters will have a few basic items ("The Big 6") in order to keep up with CR-appropriate challenges. It's not a design philosophy I like, but it is part of the game.

It also assume characters will have some freedom to pick what gear they want (After all, nothing stops you from selling stuff you don't want and buying more effective gear).

Besides, I don't see any build here spending a lot of gold on particularly "rare" items. It's mostly The Big 6 (which, again, the system expects you to have) and few other items that don't usually have that much of an impact on the character's build.

What does completely change a build is having double WBL by exploiting crafting feats and the "SLA count as spells for prerequisites" FAQ (which is the whole point I was trying to make by building Perry and Cinbaa).


Bladelock wrote:
Do all your DM's give you any equipment you want when you want it?

This seems to be a pretty common design strategy on the boards. In all of my years of playing home games, I've never seen it.

That being said, I think taking away magic items would even further unbalance the situation in favor of the bard, as the bard has access to magic through its class, where as the rogue does not. I'd like for the rogue to be a stronger option because thematically a rogue is very cool. But the numbers just don't back it up.


Tormsskull wrote:
Bladelock wrote:
Do all your DM's give you any equipment you want when you want it?

This seems to be a pretty common design strategy on the boards. In all of my years of playing home games, I've never seen it.

That being said, I think taking away magic items would even further unbalance the situation in favor of the bard, as the bard has access to magic through its class, where as the rogue does not. I'd like for the rogue to be a stronger option because thematically a rogue is very cool. But the numbers just don't back it up.

Yeah, starting to see that trend here when someone went after a build I posted because of the equipment I picked. GM's give what GM's give.

Buffs are one of those gray areas for me. If a bard is buffing the whole party is getting them. Solo buffs that are easily stackable (rage, shapechange, weapon enhancement, etc...) with common group buffs of course should count as an additive improvement, but ones that don't stack, or are duplicates don't really add DPR. However they do make it easier for the user to reliably get them off.

As far as I'm concerned it's ok if a bard has lower dpr because they increase total party effectiveness. However adding group buffs to say that a bard's dpr is higher than it is doesn't hold a lot of water for me.

This whole thread, and its conclusions just baffle me. SA is such an explosive amount of additional damage on each attack, that its crazy that people are wondering if it works. With planning it is also pretty reliable. If there were not a lot of counters it would easily be over the top.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bladelock wrote:
Yeah, starting to see that trend here when someone went after a build I posted because of the equipment I picked. GM's give what GM's give.

Sometimes. But they usually give magic armor, Amulet of Natural Armor, Ring of Protection, etc. The only two things the character I last posted would likely have to buy are their sword, and the Jingasa. Are you saying two items over ten levels is too many to buy? Because that's a pretty reasonable number, really...

Bladelock wrote:
Buffs are one of those gray areas for me. If a bard is buffing the whole party is getting them. Solo buffs that are easily stackable (rage, shapechange, weapon enhancement, etc...) with common group buffs of course should count as an additive improvement, but ones that don't stack, or are duplicates don't really add DPR. However they do make it easier for the user to reliably get them off.

Which is generally why the only buff I've been adding to the Bard that isn't personal and un-duplicatable is Good Hope...and while that buffs the whole group, my point is that you'd be better off, in a party without another Bard, replacing a Rogue with a Bard...so that seems relevant. And it's a Bard only spell.

If you've already got a Bard, you'd still be better off replacing the rogue with something else...but likely not another Bard.

Bladelock wrote:
As far as I'm concerned it's ok if a bard has lower dpr because they increase total party effectiveness. However adding group buffs to say that a bard's dpr is higher than it is doesn't hold a lot of water for me.

The only group buff being added is one that a Bard, and only a Bard, can apply. And again, my point is that if you, for example, have a Cleric, Wizard, and Fighter, you're better off with a Bard than a Rogue, because the Bard will do everything better. Which makes his buffs a relevant part of that.

If your party is instead a Barbarian, Bard, Oracle, and Witch...you're still better off ditching rogue for another class, but Slayer, Urban Ranger or Vivisectionist would be the class in question, not Bard.

Bladelock wrote:
This whole thread, and its conclusions just baffle me. SA is such an explosive amount of additional damage on each attack, that its crazy that people are wondering if it works. With planning it is also pretty reliable. If there were not a lot of counters it would easily be over the top.

As others have mentioned, it's not Sneak Attack that's the problem, it's the Rogue. Let's look at this numerically. Sneak Attack is good,so we'll say it gives +3 Class Points. That's very good, one of the better class features around. Unfortunately, when totalled up, the Rogue Class has only, say, 8 points (lower than anybody but the core Monk and Fighter), while , say, Bard and Vivisectionist have 11 each. And do the same basic role as the Rogue does.

These numbers are purely arbitrary, I'm just trying to explain what people are saying here in a different way.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
If you've already got a Bard, you'd still be better off replacing the rogue with something else...but likely not another Bard.

I think this is key and probably where the confusion is coming in. The comparison is not a bard and a rogue in the same party and then see who does better.

The question is "which character class provides more benefit to the party, rogue or bard?"

IME, it is hands down the bard. Especially when you use archetypes/traits/whatever that let you get the one thing that used to be solely the territory of the rogue - trapfinding.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


The only group buff being added is one that a Bard, and only a Bard, can apply. And again, my point is that if you, for example, have a Cleric, Wizard, and Fighter, you're better off with a Bard than a Rogue, because the Bard will do everything better. Which makes his buffs a relevant part of that.

If your party is instead a Barbarian, Bard, Oracle, and Witch...you're still better off ditching rogue for another class, but Slayer, Urban Ranger or Vivisectionist would be the class in question, not Bard.

I get what you're saying now. However this thread started talking specifically about SA. Most of the attacks on rogues have been about the weakness of SA. That has been where I've focused because in my experience it has not been true. I also don't understand people saying that SA makes a rogue dependent on other party members. Even when i'm not playing a rogue, I flank for the to hit bonus, and so do most experienced players I've played with.

However I will say something about rogues in general, they are self contained and have staying power. It's why they are one of the classes I play (often multiclass'd or w/ a prestige I will admit). Being able to push beyond the "standard four encounters" that people keep talking about has a value. Standard encounter #'s are also foreign to me. I never know what my GM's are going to toss out.

So to answer the initial question of the thread once again; yes, I think SA is worth it. It needs to be planned for with the character build, and works better if your group uses sound tactics.

Liberty's Edge

Bladelock wrote:
I get what you're saying now. However this thread started talking specifically about SA. Most of the attacks on rogues have been about the weakness of SA. That has been where I've focused because in my experience it has not been true.

Sneak Attack is situational. It's good, but you don't always get to apply it. the argument comes in when you start talking about how often you get to apply it.

Bladelock wrote:
I also don't understand people saying that SA makes a rogue dependent on other party members. Even when i'm not playing a rogue, I flank for the to hit bonus, and so do most experienced players I've played with.

This is, I think, partially from organized play, where depending on the competence or experience of random people you've never met before to make your character effective at all...is a poor choice.

And partially it's because s%~@ happens. What if the only other melee character in the party gets trapped in a pit? Or paralyzed? Or even just entangled? This is less of an issue if you have multiple melee characters around...but that's not a universal circumstance (especially not in the 'default' 4-person party).

Bladelock wrote:
However I will say something about rogues in general, they are self contained and have staying power. It's why they are one of the classes I play (often multiclass'd or w/ a prestige I will admit). Being able to push beyond the "standard four encounters" that people keep talking about has a value. Standard encounter #'s are also foreign to me. I never know what my GM's are going to toss out.

Staying power has a few problems being a real advantage in most groups that basically come down to the following: When the lowest staying power character is out of spells, the PCs stop for the night and rest. This means that staying power is only important in many groups if you're operating on a really specific timetable, or if the whoe group has it, and neither are common.

Bladelock wrote:
So to answer the initial question of the thread once again; yes, I think SA is worth it. It needs to be planned for with the character build, and works better if your group uses sound tactics.

I agree that Sneak Attack can be very worth it in the right build or with the right group...but if you want it, why not go Vivisectionist, Slayer, or even Ninja? All are better than a base Rogue, and still receive it (though Slayer gets a bit less of it).


The problem I have with sneak attack comes from how limiting it is in practice. I am currently playing my first rogue. I made the mistake of going down the TWF route, thinking it would increase my DPR and make me more viable in combat. I'm a core rogue, to keep Trapfinding and Uncanny Dodge. In theory I can dish out decent damage, but in practice this is what happens:

1. I charge in to get a single attack on an enemy with sneak attack while he's flat footed. Paladin does the same.
2. Now, either a) enemy is dead because of the paladin's massive damage, and I have to move to flank another enemy, getting only one attack again, or b) enemy is still alive.
3. Assuming the enemy is still alive, he can make a full attack and make a 5 foot step diagonally away from me. Now I can't flank him without moving 10 feet. I get one sneak attack again. Any other class that doesn't rely on sneak attack would be able to 5 foot step and make a full attack, while only missing out on the flanking bonus.

Also, if I do manage to get a full attack, but kill the enemy in one or two hits, there's no nearby enemy who is in flanking position. so my other attacks are wasted.

Then there was the time we had to fight an air elemental (immune to sneak attack and has DR). I was completely useless in that battle, only there to provide a flanking bonus. Now I have a wand of Acid Arrow that we found, but still...

I really like my rogue as a character. I have enormous fun roleplaying, interacting with NPCs. With my trapspotting feat, I am great at detecting traps. I can sneak nearly anywhere and tumble around the battlefield easily, but I feel so useless in combat. It gets really frustrating.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


Bladelock wrote:
I also don't understand people saying that SA makes a rogue dependent on other party members. Even when i'm not playing a rogue, I flank for the to hit bonus, and so do most experienced players I've played with.

This is, I think, partially from organized play, where depending on the competence or experience of random people you've never met before to make your character effective at all...is a poor choice.

And partially it's because s##% happens. What if the only other melee character in the party gets trapped in a pit? Or paralyzed? Or even just entangled? This is less of an issue if you have multiple melee characters around...but that's not a universal circumstance (especially not in the 'default' 4-person party).

Bladelock wrote:
However I will say something about rogues in general, they are self contained and have staying power. It's why they are one of the classes I play (often multiclass'd or w/ a prestige I will admit). Being able to push beyond the "standard four encounters" that people keep talking about has a value. Standard encounter #'s are also foreign to me. I never know what my GM's are going to toss out.

Staying power has a few problems being a real advantage in most groups that basically come down to the following: When the lowest staying power character is out of spells, the PCs stop for the night and rest. This means that staying power is only important in many groups if you're operating on a really specific timetable, or if the whoe group has it, and neither are common.

Bladelock wrote:
So to answer
...

I guess part of the problem is that I haven't participated in organized play. It was piquing my interest, but the more I hear about how cookie cutter it is, the less interested I'm becoming in participating. If everything is so predicable I might as well just read the adventure to play them and GM them alone. That doesn't sound like much fun.

At this point, I'll leave the topic alone, because you guys are clearly playing a different game than I am. Maybe PF doesn't need to modify rogues, just the PFS.

Shadow Lodge

SilentlySage wrote:

The problem I have with sneak attack comes from how limiting it is in practice. I am currently playing my first rogue. I made the mistake of going down the TWF route, thinking it would increase my DPR and make me more viable in combat. I'm a core rogue, to keep Trapfinding and Uncanny Dodge. In theory I can dish out decent damage, but in practice this is what happens:

1. I charge in to get a single attack on an enemy with sneak attack while he's flat footed. Paladin does the same.
2. Now, either a) enemy is dead because of the paladin's massive damage, and I have to move to flank another enemy, getting only one attack again, or b) enemy is still alive.
3. Assuming the enemy is still alive, he can make a full attack and make a 5 foot step diagonally away from me. Now I can't flank him without moving 10 feet. I get one sneak attack again. Any other class that doesn't rely on sneak attack would be able to 5 foot step and make a full attack, while only missing out on the flanking bonus.

Also, if I do manage to get a full attack, but kill the enemy in one or two hits, there's no nearby enemy who is in flanking position. so my other attacks are wasted.

Then there was the time we had to fight an air elemental (immune to sneak attack and has DR). I was completely useless in that battle, only there to provide a flanking bonus. Now I have a wand of Acid Arrow that we found, but still...

I really like my rogue as a character. I have enormous fun roleplaying, interacting with NPCs. With my trapspotting feat, I am great at detecting traps. I can sneak nearly anywhere and tumble around the battlefield easily, but I feel so useless in combat. It gets really frustrating.

1. scout archetype fixes this, by not needing to go first in surprise

2. a half orc with the toothy trait and out flank can hit 3x attacks, at level 3, against a flatfooted flanked opponent which makes up for the lack of and doesn't need to move to any particular position to make it work.
3. see answer 3, also to boost your ac get the rogue trait offensive defense.
4. dimensional dervish can fix that, you need to dip into horizon walker for it, but it makes up for a lack of mobility in the rogue.
5. when going up against things immune to SA you need to have a backup plan, any number of options exsist like:

Liberty's Edge

@SilentlySage: Some tactical advice, having played a few Rogues. Don't charge.

Your first turn isn't for attacking, it's for maneuvering to set up your second turn.

Look at the enemy the Paladin is going to charge, is it a minion, or the sole enemy?

If it's the sole enemy (or main threat, anyway), use a double-move and some Acrobatics to get around behind it so the Paladin will be auto-flanking with you after their charge. On turns 2 and 3, you'll get to full attack.

If it's a minion, move around behind a different minion than the one the Paladin is going to charge, and then the next turn delay your action until after his, and wait for him to come over (you say enemies are usually dead after two of his attacks...which would leave him a move action to come flank with you, enabling your killing of the second enemy).

This obviously necessitates some coordination with the Paladin, but it might help a bit.

At higher levels, get your Wizard (or whatever) to put Greater Invisibility on you.

Or, from a mechanical perspective, see if your GM will let you grab the Scout Archetype, that'd help a bit. Or rebuild your character as a Slayer, that'd help a lot. Both cost you Uncanny Dodge, but you keep Trapfinding.

Liberty's Edge

Bladelock wrote:
I guess part of the problem is that I haven't participated in organized play. It was piquing my interest, but the more I hear about how cookie cutter it is, the less interested I'm becoming in participating. If everything is so predicable I might as well just read the adventure to play them and GM them alone. That doesn't sound like much fun.

I don't get the impression it's predictable per se (though I don't play PFS)...the only really predictable thing is that you can get what magic items you like, and your very party composition is unpredictable.

Bladelock wrote:
At this point, I'll leave the topic alone, because you guys are clearly playing a different game than I am. Maybe PF doesn't need to modify rogues, just the PFS.

SilentlySage appears to be talking about his (pretty standard) Rogue problems in regards to a home game...

It's not organized play that's the issue per se, it just makes the issue worse, IMO.


Thanks for the advice guys. I will consider asking my GM if I can change my build to make it more effective. I mainly wanted to contribute by pointing out the difference between theory and practice when it comes to sneak attack. In practice it's so easy to negate sneak attack that it becomes a poor damage dealing mechanism to rely on.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
If it's the sole enemy (or main threat, anyway), use a double-move and some Acrobatics to get around behind it so the Paladin will be auto-flanking with you after their charge. On turns 2 and 3, you'll get to full attack.

I do this all of the time, and it's fine, until the enemy takes a diagonal five foot step away from me.

For example (R = me, E = enemy, P = partner)
I've just moved into flanking:
_ _ _
R E P
_ _ _

After Enemy's turn (full attack, 5 foot step):
_ _ E
R _ P
_ _ _

I can't get sneak attack without moving at least 10 feet :(.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Bladelock wrote:
At this point, I'll leave the topic alone, because you guys are clearly playing a different game than I am. Maybe PF doesn't need to modify rogues, just the PFS.

SilentlySage appears to be talking about his (pretty standard) Rogue problems in regards to a home game...

As Deadmanwalking said, this is in a home game. The problems I've laid out here are present in any Pathfinder game. Sneak attack is a nice bonus, but it can't be relied upon.

Liberty's Edge

SilentlySage wrote:
Thanks for the advice guys. I will consider asking my GM if I can change my build to make it more effective. I mainly wanted to contribute by pointing out the difference between theory and practice when it comes to sneak attack. In practice it's so easy to negate sneak attack that it becomes a poor damage dealing mechanism to rely on.

Yeah, this is definitely a problem.

SilentlySage wrote:

I do this all of the time, and it's fine, until the enemy takes a diagonal five foot step away from me.

For example (R = me, E = enemy, P = partner)
I've just moved into flanking:
_ _ _
R E P
_ _ _

After Enemy's turn (full attack, 5 foot step):
_ _ E
R _ P
_ _ _

I can't get sneak attack without moving at least 10 feet :(.

Not if you coordinate.

So, the enemy is here:

_ _ E _
R _ P _
_ _ _ _

Then you delay until after the Paladin's turn, and he does this:

_ _ E P
R _ _ _
_ _ _ _

And full-attacks. Either the villain's dead, and you can maneuver about, or you can 5-foot step and be flanking.

This isn't ideal, certainly, and I'm not saying it is, but it helps.

SilentlySage wrote:
As Deadmanwalking said, this is in a home game. The problems I've laid out here are present in any Pathfinder game. Sneak attack is a nice bonus, but it can't be relied upon.

Yeah. Even if your coordination is perfect, you wind up burning turns setting it up, and like I said earlier, what if something happens to the Paladin? Then you're just screwed.


Sneak Attack is the least of the Rogue's problem. As I already said (twice) in this thread, it's not a bad class feature, it's just not good enough to carry the Rogue class. It's pretty good for Vivisectionist Alchemists, since those guys are not dependent on it to be effective and have the means to make SA a real threat.

Rogue have awful defenses and low accuracy. That's their main problem. The fact that they are completely dependent on situational damage to be anything other than completely useless in combat and are easily replaced by half a dozen classes doesn't help either.

That is why we say Rogues are underpowered. I never played in PFS, but that didn't stop me from noticing the flaws with the class.

Flanking is easy, but it's not guaranteed. There are many situations where it's not possible or not worthy the risk. Very often, the main front-liner with have other priorities.

Again, for the 4th time in this thread alone:

Sneak Attack is not a bad class feature, it's just not good enough to make Rogues effective.


@Deadmanwalking: I see what you mean now. Thanks.

Lemmy wrote:
Sneak Attack is not a bad class feature, it's just not good enough to make Rogues effective.

I agree that sneak attack is not a bad feature, but that if you rely on it (as the rogue often does) you can be completely shut down when you are unable to sneak for some reason. Rogues just do not have enough other good options to make them effective in this case. Rogue talents especially are just so underwhelming.


SilentlySage wrote:
I do this all of the time, and it's fine, until the enemy takes a diagonal five foot step away from me.

Just to note, assuming your party is dealing with trippable foes, the Trip maneuver really helps with this sort of thing, and it helps with the accuracy issue as well. I had great success in PFS with my now-19th-level Rogue thanks to Trip.

My basic tactic was to hang back in the first round, often putting up a buff and moving to the "wings" of the combat after the haste or blessing of fervor went out. I'd let the fighter-types engage, then pick my target, zip into a flanking position, then go for the trip. Thanks to Greater Trip, I would then get a sneak attack AO (which I would sometimes use to Disarm the foe), and my party member would also get an AO.

I essentially went for a solid damage "spike" with a nasty debilitating effect (prone, and sometimes disarmed) attached to it. And I had a lot of success with it.

The trick was to hang back and not engage until I was ready to go for the throat.

-Matt


Mattastrophic wrote:
Just to note, assuming your party is dealing with trippable foes, the Trip maneuver really helps with this sort of thing, and it helps with the accuracy issue as well. I had great success in PFS with my now-19th-level Rogue thanks to Trip.

Originally I opted to stay away from combat maneuvers, thinking that it would be difficult with the rogue's BAB, but the build you posted has me reconsidering. I currently have Combat Expertise anyway, for Improved Two Weapon Feint.


Finesse builds are really good at tripping, thanks to Fury's Fall. If we had a feat or Rogue Talent that made Rogues capable of Sneak Attacking a prone opponent, they would become pretty decent combatants (at least 'til everything starts flying).

Their defenses would still suck, though... It's difficult to survive past 8th level with those awful saves.


Make sure you clarify with your GM about just which bonuses apply to your Trip modifier, bonuses like Weapon Finesse and flanking. You don't need Agile Maneuvers to add Dex to Trip, Disarm, or Sunder, and sometimes the GM doesn't know that.

It's also worth noting that there are a bunch of stackable CMD bonuses out there, like the gauntlets of the skilled maneuver and the dusty rose prism slotted in a wayfinder.

-Matt


Everyone gave some really good advice when it comes to party coordination and trip. If you are going to use of trip make sure you take enough feats, and plan your stats, to push your CMB up high enough that it will reliably take down a target.

I will just add that improved feint is also great for getting SA off at low lvls. You only get one SA, but the target loses its dex so it is pretty reliable. Also a familiar that is small or medium sized will also do the trick, however that takes two feats or a lvl 10 talent.

Mattastophic, how do you add dex to trip without Agile Maneuvers? It, and Fury's Fall where the only ways that I found.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Weapon Finesse. Bonuses you add to attack rolls with the weapon use to trip add to CMB checks as well.

Quote:
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9ojt

FAQ Source on that.


Lemmy wrote:
Sneak Attack is not a bad class feature, it's just not good enough to make Rogues effective.

But it's not exactly a good one. Two feats and a falchion (or one feat and keen) do nearly as much for a full BAB class and far more consistently.

If you can power attack and sneak attack it's extra damage, but against enemies that matter the accuracy on something like weapon training or rage would probably be better.


Atarlost wrote:
But it's not exactly a good one.

It is worth noting that Sneak Attack was designed nearly fifteen years ago, and has not changed since 3.0. Back in 3.0, if memory serves:

-Power Attack was always 1-for-1.
-Deadly Aim didn't exist.
-Barbarians could only rage a couple of times per day.
-A Bard's Inspire Courage never went beyond +1.
-The Ranger's only class features were Favored Enemy (only +1 instead of +2, and not to attack rolls), Track, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Ambidexterity as bonus feats, with Improved Two-Weapon Fighting at 9th. (Did they even get spells in 3.0?)

This was the game Sneak Attack was designed for, and it never got the upgrades that many, many, many other things received over time.

That being said, I personally find playing a character who relies on Sneak Attack much, much more interesting than a character who relies on simply high-Strength and Power Attack. Sneak Attack gives me something to do after initiative hits the board. And I've gotten Sneak Attack to work well so far, even if I'm not just steamrolling content.

EDIT: I actually dug up the 3.0 Rogue's text from here...

3.0 PHB:
Sneak Attack: Any time the rogue's target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks the target, the rogue's attack deals extra damage. The extra damage is +1d6 at 1st level and an additional 1d6 every two levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.
Ranged attacks can only count as sneak attacks if the target is within 30 feet. The rogue can't strike with deadly accuracy from beyond that range.
With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, the rogue can make a sneak attack that deals subdual damage instead of normal damage. The rogue cannot use a weapon that deals normal damage to deal subdual damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.
A rogue can only sneak attack a living creature with a discernible anatomy. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is also not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach a vital spot. The rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

-Matt


Mattastrophic wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
But it's not exactly a good one.

It is worth noting that Sneak Attack was designed nearly fifteen years ago, and has not changed since 3.0. Back in 3.0, if memory serves:

-Power Attack was always 1-for-1.
-Deadly Aim didn't exist.
-Barbarians could only rage a couple of times per day.
-A Bard's Inspire Courage never went beyond +1.
-The Ranger's only class features were Favored Enemy (only +1 instead of +2, and not to attack rolls), Track, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Ambidexterity as bonus feats, with Improved Two-Weapon Fighting at 9th. (Did they even get spells in 3.0?)

This was the game Sneak Attack was designed for, and it never got the upgrades that many, many, many other things received over time.

That being said, I personally find playing a character who relies on Sneak Attack much, much more interesting than a character who relies on simply high-Strength and Power Attack. Sneak Attack gives me something to do after initiative hits the board. And I've gotten Sneak Attack to work well so far, even if I'm not just steamrolling content.

EDIT: I actually dug up the 3.0 Rogue's text from here...

** spoiler omitted **...

Not only did Rangers have spells, they also had polymorph on their lists! They had both the archer and the two wpn fighter options as well. 3.0 was good for rangers.

Power attack may have been 1for1, but you could give your entire BAB to it if you wanted. AC was much harder to come by so it was very powerful.

SA has also become more powerful now. Back in 3.0 and in 3.5 you needed spells to affect undead and constructs with SA. The Fortitude armor bonus went to 100% and was much much cheaper. There also was no Shatter Defenses, Moonlight Stalker line, Rogue familiars, or seven Branched Sword. Rogues didn't have talents that add to SA and other rogue abilities.

Compared to the good ol' days, SA is crazy easy to land in lots of different ways, against a lot more targets. Rogues in general also have a lot more tools.


Bladelock wrote:
Compared to the good ol' days, SA is crazy easy to land in lots of different ways, against a lot more targets. Rogues in general also have a lot more tools.

I see your point, Bladelock, about the expanded tools. It's also worth noting that 3.0 and 3.5 had splatbooks, too, which expanded tools for achieving Sneak Attack. I'm mainly commenting on the fact that Sneak Attack's text has not changed since 3.0, while many other class features and feats in the Core Rulebook have been improved over time, like Power Attack, Rage, Favored Enemy, Inspire Courage, Smite Evil, etc, etc, etc.

Sneak Attack even still has the legacy text about needing to pick out a vital spot.

It's just a tidbit for consideration.

-Matt


You made me pull out some of my old books. Good times.

I'm looking at a few of the books and most of those feats helped straight up combat, but didn't do much for SA. Some of the prestige class features are now feats for everyone.

I will concede the talents could use some touch ups to round out rogues, based on some of the new classes and changes to other classes I have now reviewed. Maybe some more powerful talents that require weaker prerequisites, as done with the feats, is all that rogues need to take care of any current power disparity. I will reiterate that I think the balance issues are at best small.


Yeah, I've been thinking about this topic quite a bit lately. Here are the tweaks I have arrived upon so far after much, much thought, with a focus on being minimalist and ignoring damage-amount issues right now:

-Change "concealment" to "total concealment" in Sneak Attack's text. This deals with the oft-cited obscuring mist problem, and the problem of being unable to use Sneak Attack in a dark alley. Then we wouldn't need the Shadow Strike feat anymore.

-Change flanking to be corner-to-corner rather than center-to-center, with the caveat that the "line" has to actually pass through the enemy's square. This new geometry would open up additional positioning opportunities for achieving flanking, rather than the strict ones center-to-center forces now. It would also make flanking with reach weapons much less weird.

So, this would work:

[][]A
[]E[]
[]A[]

And this would work:

A[][][]
[]EE[]
[]EE[]
[][]A[]

But this would not work:

A[][]
[]E[]
A[][]

-Matt


Bladelock wrote:

Do all your DM's give you any equipment you want when you want it?

Everyone got all over Matt for his crafting work around when he spent a feat to get those items, but all these builds are done with equipment from gold.

If you want to see what a BUILD can do, it should be with no equipment. It should be about what is done with the lvls. Clever equipment "theorycraft" is just a completely separate thing, unless you have a crafting feat like Matt included. Even then it still hides exactly how weak or strong the rest of a build is.

You know that there are rules for magic item availability right? (and that they are much harsher in PF than they were in 3.5)


Mattastrophic wrote:
It is worth noting that Sneak Attack was designed nearly fifteen years ago, and has not changed since 3.0.

Good points. As Bladelock points out, there's no longer a ton of enemies that are immune to sneak attack, but it definitely didn't get boosted like a lot of other things.

Mattastrophic wrote:
-Change flanking to be corner-to-corner rather than center-to-center, with the caveat that the "line" has to actually pass through the enemy's square.

I still say changing flanked into a condition is a lot better. If a target is flanked, he's flanked for everyone. This means highly mobile & ranged rogues can still get their sneak attacks off much more frequently. Plus it encourages teamwork as everyone benefits from flanking rather than just the flankers.


Tormsskull wrote:
Mattastrophic wrote:
It is worth noting that Sneak Attack was designed nearly fifteen years ago, and has not changed since 3.0.

Good points. As Bladelock points out, there's no longer a ton of enemies that are immune to sneak attack, but it definitely didn't get boosted like a lot of other things.

Mattastrophic wrote:
-Change flanking to be corner-to-corner rather than center-to-center, with the caveat that the "line" has to actually pass through the enemy's square.
I still say changing flanked into a condition is a lot better. If a target is flanked, he's flanked for everyone. This means highly mobile & ranged rogues can still get their sneak attacks off much more frequently. Plus it encourages teamwork as everyone benefits from flanking rather than just the flankers.

change it to a condition and remove the positioning requirement, any foe that has 2 or more characters attacking or threatening it, counts as flanked, which would apply to ranged attacks as well

also, allow an Arcane Trickster whom fires multiple rays in a volley, to sneak attack with each ray. and allow sneak attack with any spell or effect that has a hit point damage roll, such as fireball or magic missile. or hell, flasks.


leo1925 wrote:
Bladelock wrote:

Do all your DM's give you any equipment you want when you want it?

Everyone got all over Matt for his crafting work around when he spent a feat to get those items, but all these builds are done with equipment from gold.

If you want to see what a BUILD can do, it should be with no equipment. It should be about what is done with the lvls. Clever equipment "theorycraft" is just a completely separate thing, unless you have a crafting feat like Matt included. Even then it still hides exactly how weak or strong the rest of a build is.

You know that there are rules for magic item availability right? (and that they are much harsher in PF than they were in 3.5)

There were no "rules" for magic item disbursement in 3.5 or 3.0. There were randomized treasure suggestions after monster description, but that was it. I also haven't found any in PF. If you have a link that tells DM's what to give players, please share the link.

Silver Crusade

Bladelock wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Bladelock wrote:

Do all your DM's give you any equipment you want when you want it?

Everyone got all over Matt for his crafting work around when he spent a feat to get those items, but all these builds are done with equipment from gold.

If you want to see what a BUILD can do, it should be with no equipment. It should be about what is done with the lvls. Clever equipment "theorycraft" is just a completely separate thing, unless you have a crafting feat like Matt included. Even then it still hides exactly how weak or strong the rest of a build is.

You know that there are rules for magic item availability right? (and that they are much harsher in PF than they were in 3.5)
There were no "rules" for magic item disbursement in 3.5 or 3.0. There were randomized treasure suggestions after monster description, but that was it. I also haven't found any in PF. If you have a link that tells DM's what to give players, please share the link.

I assume this is in relation to what you can buy at settlements, which is in the CRB.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Check it.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There are rules in the GMG or CRB (I think, I don't have mine on me, don't bring PF books to uni with me) about having players roll to see if an item is in a town. You have a better chance based on the population, level of the magic item, etc. They are somewhere, I remember reading them. Where, I don't recall.

Ninja'd hard


Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
Mattastrophic wrote:
It is worth noting that Sneak Attack was designed nearly fifteen years ago, and has not changed since 3.0.

Good points. As Bladelock points out, there's no longer a ton of enemies that are immune to sneak attack, but it definitely didn't get boosted like a lot of other things.

Mattastrophic wrote:
-Change flanking to be corner-to-corner rather than center-to-center, with the caveat that the "line" has to actually pass through the enemy's square.
I still say changing flanked into a condition is a lot better. If a target is flanked, he's flanked for everyone. This means highly mobile & ranged rogues can still get their sneak attacks off much more frequently. Plus it encourages teamwork as everyone benefits from flanking rather than just the flankers.

change it to a condition and remove the positioning requirement, any foe that has 2 or more characters attacking or threatening it, counts as flanked, which would apply to ranged attacks as well

also, allow an Arcane Trickster whom fires multiple rays in a volley, to sneak attack with each ray. and allow sneak attack with any spell or effect that has a hit point damage roll, such as fireball or magic missile. or hell, flasks.

I'm not 100% sold on making flanking a condition. The only good rogue would be an archer... and a very powerful one at that. There is no question that Multi-ray sneak attacks would be very over powered.

I do agree with Matt's Concealment and flanking suggestions if it was Rogue and Ninja only.

401 to 450 of 473 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Is Sneak Attack ever worth it? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.